As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Strawman?

One of the most common claims of the increasingly inaccurately named 9/11 Truth movement is that of a "strawman" argument. This claim is assisted by the fact that no two truthers can agree on much, but the fact is that a fair amount of people can be found who support even the most idiotic claim, unfortunately. This recent article on the AE911Truth site attacking Chris Mohr could be Fisked at great length, but hey, it is Christmas and I have better things to do, but I thought I would point out this "Strawman" claim. Feel free to debunk the rest of the article in the comments between opening presents and drinking hot cocoa.

• If 4500 degree nanothermites were used to pulverize almost every inch of every concrete floor, then how could there have been millions of sheets of paper with an ignition temperature of only 451° raining down on the sidewalks?

This is a strawman argument. To my knowledge, nobody has suggested that nano-thermite was used “to pulverize almost every inch of every concrete floor.” To bring the building down, the steel load-bearing columns would have to be cut and gravity would do the rest. No nano-thermite or explosives would be used on the floors at all. Any use of nano-thermite would be targeted at the connections or the columns themselves.

Unfortunately for the author, this is a common claim in the movement, for this claim we have to go no further than AE911Truth founder Richard Gage himself, here for example in a radio interview from March 2008:

Ninety thousand tons of struct... of concrete has been pulverized to a fine talcum powder, though these uhh, intense explosions, including its metal decking and the floor trusses that were supporting, it, uhh completely gone and blown outside the perimeter.

145 Comments:

James, I'd suggest that you send your posts to me for editing before you embarrass yourself by publishing them. Like WAQo/TAW, you seize on a contradiction that is not a contradiction. On the radio, Mr. Gage was talking about explosives. In the recent article, he's talking about nanothermite--an incendiary. I'll suppose that explosives can pulverize concrete without damaging paper. I'll suppose that nanothermite can not. For Mr. Mohr to demand that nanothermite pulverize the concrete is as dishonest as ButtGale's phony questions about Silicon in dust.

The explosives/incendiary dichotomy is another phony contradiction, hilarious though the debunkers may find it. In my shower I use soap AND shampoo. I normally use soap on my body and shampoo on my hair--but sometimes I use soap on my hair, and sometimes I use shampoo on mybody. You guys demanding that it must be all explosives or all incendiaries is as willfully dumb as saying "But you said you use shampoo! But you said you use soap! Which is it, soap or shampoo? Get your story straight!"

Like WAQo/TAW, you seize on a contradiction that is not a contradiction.

Brian, you've already proven that you have no idea what the word "contradiction" means.

On the radio, Mr. Gage was talking about explosives. In the recent article, he's talking about nanothermite--an incendiary.

So which was it, Brian? Did explosives take down the towers, or did "nanothermite"?

The explosives/incendiary dichotomy is another phony contradiction, hilarious though the debunkers may find it.

See what I mean? You don't understand what "contradiction" means. I don't really expect any different from a failed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons.

In my shower I use soap AND shampoo. I normally use soap on my body and shampoo on my hair--but sometimes I use soap on my hair, and sometimes I use shampoo on mybody.

Yeah, given the "insane homeless person" haircut you have going, and considering that you lack the basic competence to mop floors, it doesn't surprise me that you don't know how to take a shower. I guess it helps to live with your parents so that mommy can give you a bath when you need one.

You guys demanding that it must be all explosives or all incendiaries is as willfully dumb as saying "But you said you use shampoo! But you said you use soap! Which is it, soap or shampoo? Get your story straight!"

So explosives and incendiares were both used? Why bother with the incendiaries when explosives would have taken the towers down?

"Mr. Gage was talking about explosives. In the recent article, he's talking about nanothermite--an incendiary."

ROTFLMAO It is not my fault Truthers can't keep their stories straight for more than 5 minutes. Most of the time they refer to nanothermite as an explosive, they only call it an incendiary when it suits their argument. It is a magical amorphous substance.

Don't believe me, here is one cite out of many from none other than ae911truth.

A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.

Prodo Faggins dissembles, "...For Mr. Mohr to demand that nanothermite pulverize the concrete is as dishonest as [GuitarBill's] phony questions about Silicon in dust."

Talking out of both sides of your mouth again, asshole?

If there was no "Silicon in dust," as you now assert, why have you repeatedly cited the RJ Lee Report for the presence of iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres in the WTC dust? For example,

"...The evidence of thermite was the presence of molten iron, the molten metal pouring out of WTC2 shortly before it came down, the sulfidation attacks on the Appendix C steel, the presence of exothermic mixtures of aluminum and iron in the dust, the presence of iron microspheres in the dust, and the symmetry and speed and totality of collapse." -- The Goat Fucker, 25 March 2011 10:08, from Pat's thread titled Joshua Blakeny: Israel Did It (Maybe).

The RJ Lee Report also tell us that "[h]igh temperature aluminosilicate from building materials" was found in the dust. (RJ Lee Report, Page 16).

Why is that, Prodo Faggins?

How do you explain the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

How do you explain the glaring contradiction in your "argument," Prodo Faggins?

The answer is simple: He cites the RJ Lee Report for the presence of iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres when it suits his propaganda. When the presence of iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres becomes inconvenient, the iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres suddenly disappear from the dust.

Thus, we have incontrovertible proof that you're a duplicitous homosexual degenerate, Prodo Faggins.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

Now, I think you'd do well to get back to the thread titled, What is Old is New Again, because you have some explaining to do, Prodo Faggins.

Ian, you're only proving my point. You might as well demand to know whether I use soap or shampoo in the shower.

Ian, incendiaries have the advantage of operating relatively quietly. Explosives would have the advantage of energy density and reliability. Explosives would also provide the advantage of scattering the debris so it could be easily removed. If you didn't scatter the debris you'd tend to get tangles in the core, and then you might wind up with embarrassing pieces of steel wedged into thousand-ton agglomerations of steel.

Also, in the early stages of collapse it would be advisable to use thermite. Once you reached the later stages you could safely use explosives knowing the douns would be masked by the thunderous sound of the collapse.

The evidence for explosives is the squibs and the multi-ton debris sections flung at velocities of up to 60mph and distances of up to 600 feet. The evidence for incendiaries is the molten steel seen in the rubble.

James, so you're proving my point. If you had allowed me to comment before publishing, you would have cited the article that does say what you claim instead of a radio quote that doesn't. So yes, you've got an article from almost three years ago that was rushed into publication and overstates the point. Good work!

So what "truthers" exactly are currently saying that nanothermite is explosive? Bill Deagle? Craig Ranke? Kevin Barrett?

ButtGale, I never said there was no Silicon in dust. I've been saying all along that dust is filthy with the stuff. Your incompetence is showing again. Your continued harping on this issue only shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Clearly you are only blustering in a silly attempt to fool the feeble-minded into thinking you have a point.

Prodo Faggins contradicts himself again and brays, "...I never said there was no Silicon in dust."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What's this, Prodo Faggins?

"...You haven't shown that Dr. Jones's microspheres contain Silicon." -- Prodo Faggins, lying and contradicting himself with abandon on 24 December, 2011 10:56, from James B's thread titled, What is Old is New Again.

Clearly, Prodo Faggins, you're only blustering in a silly attempt to fool the feeble-minded into thinking you have a point.

Now hop around like a homo on a hot tin roof and lie through your terracotta teeth again, Prodo Faggins.

ButtGale, your belief that the dust and the microspheres are the same is ludicrous. RJ Lee determined that only 6% of the particles were iron microspheres. Don't you remember that, when you humiliated yourself by insisting again and again that it was 6% by weight when it was clearly 6% by number of particles?

James B, I merely suggested that if you ran your post by me I might point out some of its deficiencies before you post it. For instance, the fact that you have to go back almost 3 years to find something to complain about.

"Ian, incendiaries have the advantage of operating relatively quietly. Explosives would have the advantage of energy density and reliability.'...

...because thermite is not reliable for demolition.

"Explosives would also provide the advantage of scattering the debris so it could be easily removed."

Yet some stupid asshole keeps saying the collapse was symmetrical. If it was symmetrical then the debris wouldn't have been scattered.

Using this chain of logic explosives and thermite were not used. Thanks for clearing that up.

"If you didn't scatter the debris you'd tend to get tangles in the core, and then you might wind up with embarrassing pieces of steel wedged into thousand-ton agglomerations of steel. "

...which was what they got...hence not explosives.

"Also, in the early stages of collapse it would be advisable to use thermite."

Nope.

"The evidence for explosives is the squibs and the multi-ton debris sections flung at velocities of up to 60mph and distances of up to 600 feet."

Nope. Simple force of air caused by the collapse of each tower. The engergy in the collapse of each tower was equal to a small nuclear warhead, and more than enough to send massive steel structures flying. This also gives a reasonable person an idea of how powerful an explosive, or amount of explosives were needed to pull off your bullshit theory.

"The evidence for incendiaries is the molten steel seen in the rubble."

Nope.

Again you assume all steel melts at the same temps, all sightings of molten steel were in fact steel, and the people who saw them either knew what they were talking about, or used poor word-choice to describe the undescribable.

"I normally use soap on my body and shampoo on my hair--but sometimes I use soap on my hair, and sometimes I use shampoo on mybody. "

Yeah, and I bet you use this to explain why your crotch itches.

"James B, I merely suggested that if you ran your post by me I might point out some of its deficiencies before you post it."

Everyone knows you can't read well. Plus James doesn't want to be on the hook to replace your crayons.

Please provide pictures of large sections of tangled up metal to support your claim. What I see is everything broken up into its component pieces--which is quite mystifying given that substantial portions of the cores survived the initial collapses of the outer floors. I'll suppose that NIST found this mystifying too, as they made no attempt to explain it.

Force of air blew multi-ton steel assemblies up to 600 feet at speeds of 60 mph? You are nuts!

Your belief that the magnitude of explosive power to demolish a building must equal the magnitude of potential energy of the building is quite inventive, and quite amusing. I don't believe that you've had physics or chemistry. You obviously don't understand energetics at all.

How about you provide some evidence that the collapses were symmetrical, OK, Brian? You constantly babble about this as if it were self-evident.

What I see is everything broken up into its component pieces--which is quite mystifying given that substantial portions of the cores survived the initial collapses of the outer floors. I'll suppose that NIST found this mystifying too, as they made no attempt to explain it.

What you see suggests you have no grasp on reality.

Force of air blew multi-ton steel assemblies up to 600 feet at speeds of 60 mph? You are nuts!

The incredulity of a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves does not impress anyone, Brian.

Your belief that the magnitude of explosive power to demolish a building must equal the magnitude of potential energy of the building is quite inventive, and quite amusing. I don't believe that you've had physics or chemistry. You obviously don't understand energetics at all.

Brian, you've proved beyond a doubt many times that you know nothing of physics and chemistry, and squealing about it doesn't change things.

"Force of air blew multi-ton steel assemblies up to 600 feet at speeds of 60 mph? You are nuts!"

Nope. The same force of air blew firetrucks just as far. The same force of air blew all kinds of heavy stuff around. The same force of air blew out concrete facades of neighboring buildings.

"Your belief that the magnitude of explosive power to demolish a building must equal the magnitude of potential energy of the building is quite inventive, and quite amusing. I don't believe that you've had physics or chemistry. You obviously don't understand energetics at all. "

I just understand math. To equal the force of the towers collapsing by themselves with explosives would have required an amount measured in tons.

None were found, no evidence on their use, nothing on film.

"I'll suppose that NIST found this mystifying too, as they made no attempt to explain it."

Not to mention these explosives were so powerful that they ejected steel "hundreds of feet"; something a traditional CD isn't capable of, yet the explosion responsible for it is undetected. So this explosive shockwave is capable of pushing massive pieces of steel through the air, yet is incapable of moving through air itself.

ButtGale, for the fifth time at least, there is no mystery about silicon in concrete dust. Portland Cement is filthy with the stuff.

Ian, witnesses say the towers fell floor by floor by floor. That is called symmetry. You can see in the videos of WTC7 that the east and west walls fall at the same time and at the same rate, remaining vertical. That is called symmetry.

Ian, NIST has not shown that force of air blew multi-ton steel assemblies up to 600 feet at speeds of 60 mph. You have no evidence that I am a failed janitor. You write fiction. Boring fiction.

I have over a dozen times provided evidence of molten steel at the WTC, including the testimony of 5 PhDs and the 40-pound ingot of formerly molten ferrous material. Your repeated demands for evidence I have already provided is an implicit lie.

MGF, your belief that scattering implies asymmetry is simply ludicrous. When I scatter grass seed, I do so in as even anf symmetrical manner as possible.

MGF, no force of air blew fire trucks 600 feet. No force of air blew out concrete facades of neighboring buildings. Stop making stuff up. Also, you forgot to provide evidence for your claim that some steel melts below 2700 F.

You obviously don't understand energetics at all. You don't need to equal the energy of the towers collapsing to cut a few columns.You understand math like GutterBall does--you can work the equations, but you apply the wrong equations to the problem and obviously can't do a word problem to save your life.

Two 767s crashing at the 80th floor has absolutely nothing to do with the destruction of the lower core 60 floors below after that core had survived the initial collapse. You are laboring under the certainty of ignorance.

Your belief that tons of stuff are a lot is also amusing. I would expect you to know how much a ton of artichokes is.

The WTC was built for a live load of 250,000 tons. What's a few tons of explosives?

JR, the F-15 is propelled by a jet engine. Thanks for proving my point. What engine propelled the multi-ton structural elements of the WTC?

GMS, a traditional CD is certainly capable of ejecting steel "hundreds of feet". That's why CD is normally done by very competent professionals who will avoid such actions. Explosions were detected. 118 first responders detected them. The squibs can not be explained except as ejection of pulverized building materials by explosives.

GMS, how do you know there were no explosions at WTC7? You can't even see the lower part if the building.

Show me a picture of all this unpulverized concrete. Your arguments are silly. It's like claiming 100 degrees isn't hot because 110 degrees is hotter.

"JR, the F-15 is propelled by a jet engine. Thanks for proving my point. What engine propelled the multi-ton structural elements of the WTC?"

Not surprising that you don't know it isn't the jet engine that propels the F-15, but the air being forced out of the aircraft that does.

The jet engine simply creates increased pressure to force that air out and let it provide the propulsion.

Those tons and tons and tons of tower above the collapse point provided much more pressure than the mere 29 tons the two engines in an F-15 generate with afterburning on. Since it was not as tightly controlled and directed it isn't surprising it could only throw multi-ton pieces 600 feet at 60 MPH.

GMS, a traditional CD is certainly capable of ejecting steel "hundreds of feet".

Oh well you say so Brian, must be true.

Explosions were detected. 118 first responders detected them.

Nice bait and switch Brian, fact is no explosions are heard at collapse; where they should be. You know it, I know, hence the little mental gymnastics you need to do in order to ignore that none were recorded.

The squibs can not be explained except as ejection of pulverized building materials by explosives.

Yeah I know...somehow explosive shockwaves are specifc about which windows they blow out. Another baseless truther meme.

GMS, how do you know there were no explosions at WTC7? You can't even see the lower part if the building.

So you need to see something to hear it? More mental backflips to support your delusions that not a single explosion was recorded at collapse on audio or on the seismic record; provide a peer reviewed study in a real journal if you are think you are just going to link to the droolings of Jones's BS artists..

Show me a picture of all this unpulverized concrete. Your arguments are silly. It's like claiming 100 degrees isn't hot because 110 degrees is hotter.

Brian your analogies don't even make sense. As I noted even Steven Jones knows of your delusions; more specifically he knows you are "slow to understand" that the dust wasn't "pulverized" and they found chunks of concrete. But here's some pictures for you to hand wave away.

UtterFail, obviously your refusal to cite any particular paper and any specific figures is because you don't know what you're talking about. You're only blathering.

JR, right--a jet is not propelled by its engine but by air expelled from said engine, and a bicycle is not propelled by its rider but by the friction of its tire on the road. You get sillier and sillier.

There is no possible mechanism for your "tons and tons" piston to extert pressure on one isolated structural element and hurl it 200 yards at 60 miles an hour. Gas pressure is exterted in all directions equally. If it blew out one window, it should blow out all the windows, it it hurled one perimeter column at 60 mph, it should do that to all the perimeter columns.

Look at yourselves. You guys invent self-assembling blast furnaces in the debris pile, and spontaneous jet engines in the elevator shafts all in an attempt to explain the inexplicable without having to look at the evidence.

UtterFail pounds out reams and reams of dataspam about stuff he clearly does not comprehend, MGF writes fiction, you quibble about semantics, Ian denies obvious truths, and all of you make up lies about my education, my employment history, and my personal habits. That you've got nothing better to do than make stuff up is really pathetic.

MGF you continue to make stuff up. Kindly provide the quotes you claim where the 5 PhDs say that the steel buckled from fires.Also, I'm still waiting for you to back up your silly claim that some steel melts at low temperatures.

GMS, you make stuff up just like the others. There are witnesses who said they heard explosions before the collapse began.

I don't know how you can with a straight face claim that explosive shockwaves would not blow out isolated windows but air pressure coming down the elevator shafts would.

There are people who claim that some of the videos do in fact record explosions in WTC7. I haven't studied them--but you can't deny that they exist.

Some people aren't good at analogies, and I've found that they tend to be resentful of those who are.

Is that all you can get for pictures of unpulverized concrete? The ny.curbed shows a boulder of unpulverized concrete all of 5" across! You don't tell us where the idiopathic photo was taken, or why it's so tightly cropped. Yes, large portions of the basement level slabs survived.

But where are the 9.6 million square feet of concrete floors? Where are the 9.6 million square feet of steel floor pans they were poured on? You haven't got any pictures of that, have you? No you haven't, because the concrete was pulverized. It's dust. You guys deny reality and you clutch at straws to maintain your illusions.

Yet explosives are very selective. What you say is true Brian but sadly what you don't understand is that as the pressure increases the weakest point in the container is the first to go and that's where the air escapes as we see in the WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqJ-Rj259mM

You're nonsensical squibs only blow out 1 window per floor nonsense has no basis in reality; quite typical for yourself.

GMS, the weakest point in the container is going to be the windows. All of the windows. Pressurized gas is going to blow out all the windows. It won't blow out isolated windows, and it certainly won't blow out some hypothetically-weakened perimeter element at 60 mph. You're dreaming.

If you would bother to watch the videos you will see many occasions where squibs appear at isolated windows--usually, but not always--in the center of that side of the building. This happens 20, 30, 40, stories below the crush zone.

Yes, I too wanted desperately to believe that pistons pushing air down the elevator shafts could produce these squibs and for several weeks I was able to convince myself that they could. But they can't. It's contrary to the laws of physics.

GMS, you make stuff up just like the others. There are witnesses who said they heard explosions before the collapse began.

So no source on BS claim about CD's being able to hurl steel hundreds of feet huh? Talk about making stuff up.

Yes Brian we know people heard explosions, but the objective sources that can show us the moments just before collapse has no explosions, nor does the seismic record.

I don't know how you can with a straight face claim that explosive shockwaves would not blow out isolated windows but air pressure coming down the elevator shafts would.

Because you saying something doesn't make it a fact? I am aware of what an explosions is, a shockwave, not a striaght line. Repeating your fact free fantasies does not make them right. Somehow you believe an explosive capable of defeating a steel column is both hush hush and will only break a solitary window. Pretty delusional.

There are people who claim that some of the videos do in fact record explosions in WTC7. I haven't studied them--but you can't deny that they exist.

Fact is the sound in that video is nowhere close to CD's explosions. Its just truther strawgrasping to validate fantasies. "Classic controlled demolition" my ass.

Some people aren't good at analogies, and I've found that they tend to be resentful of those who are.

OK...so you're resentful, that's nice.

Is that all you can get for pictures of unpulverized concrete? The ny.curbed shows a boulder of unpulverized concrete all of 5" across! You don't tell us where the idiopathic photo was taken, or why it's so tightly cropped. Yes, large portions of the basement level slabs survived.

Yup...handwaving. You ask for examples of the concrete I provide them and you pretend it doesn't matter. And how do you know it was "cropped"? Another fact free claim. But you will notice amongst the boulders of concrete are sections of steel. Keep dancing coward. I knew the handwaving would commence, but hey its about proving how loony you people are at this point.

But where are the 9.6 million square feet of concrete floors? Where are the 9.6 million square feet of steel floor pans they were poured on? You haven't got any pictures of that, have you? No you haven't, because the concrete was pulverized. It's dust. You guys deny reality and you clutch at straws to maintain your illusions.

Oh I see so we need to provide all that to disprove your BS fantasies. Sorry Brian you're gymnastics are not impressive. You have pics of the chunks & boulders of concrete, you like it or not reality disagrees with you.

GMS, the weakest point in the container is going to be the windows. All of the windows. Pressurized gas is going to blow out all the windows. It won't blow out isolated windows, and it certainly won't blow out some hypothetically-weakened perimeter element at 60 mph. You're dreaming.

^^^Delusional. I provided evidence of it doing just that. Keep dancing Brian.

If you would bother to watch the videos you will see many occasions where squibs appear at isolated windows--usually, but not always--in the center of that side of the building. This happens 20, 30, 40, stories below the crush zone.

And there are 0 detonations. All you have is your fact free fantasy that the collapse would mask it and that a shockwave selects windows. Sorry Brian, evidence free again.

Yes, I too wanted desperately to believe that pistons pushing air down the elevator shafts could produce these squibs and for several weeks I was able to convince myself that they could. But they can't. It's contrary to the laws of physics.

Yes I know, you invoke the phrase "laws of physics"and it makes it true.

Kryton Inc. wrote, "...Note also that concrete is an excellent "heat sink" and can absorb heat by day and emit heat at night therefore helping to reduce energy requirements for cooling and/or heating buildings." -- Kevin Yuers, Vice President, Kryton International Inc. Kevin is a life-long veteran of the construction industry having spent many years running his own contracting company before joining Kryton in 1994.

What's this, Putómatic?

It's no secret that concrete has a very low coefficient of thermal expansion. Response to temperature change is expressed as its coefficient of thermal expansion.

What's this, Putómatic?

Wikipedia wrote, "...The aim for passive fire protection systems is typically demonstrated in fire testing the ability to maintain the item or the side to be protected at or below either 140 °C (for walls, floors and electrical circuits required to have a fire-resistance rating) or ca. 550 °C, which is considered the critical temperature for structural steel, above which it is in jeopardy of losing its strength, leading to collapse. This is based, in most countries, on the basic test standards for walls and floors, such as ASTM E119...To accomplish these aims, many different types of materials are employed in the design and construction of systems. For instance, common endothermic building materials include concrete and gypsum wallboard." -- Wikipedia, Passive fire protection.

So what were you saying, Prodo Faggins?

As always, I provide expert testimony, and you give us your 100% fat-free opinion.

Once again, you FAIL--you gasbag.

Yo Putómatic! Maybe your mommy will buy you some credibility for Christmas? She can wrap it up and set next to the package full of coal and double-strength condoms.

"MGF you continue to make stuff up. Kindly provide the quotes you claim where the 5 PhDs say that the steel buckled from fires.Also, I'm still waiting for you to back up your silly claim that some steel melts at low temperatures. "

I'll post them right after you debate Craig Ranke and Willie Rodriguez.

I see no reason to waste my time with a trouble making fool who runs away whenever challenged to an honest debate. You've got nothing. No original ideas. You came to the troof movement three years too late, and that was to stalk Carol.

You refuse to do any independant investigation which places you at a lower level behind the CIT gang who've actually beat the pavement to find some idiot, er, eye witness to support their claim. You do nothing but drive around to peace rallies and harass coeds.

"JR, right--a jet is not propelled by its engine but by air expelled from said engine, and a bicycle is not propelled by its rider but by the friction of its tire on the road. You get sillier and sillier."

You are so fond of pointing at Newton, I would have expected you to understand that simple concept. Not really surprising you find reality silly, just sad actually.

"There is no possible mechanism for your "tons and tons" piston to extert pressure on one isolated structural element and hurl it 200 yards at 60 miles an hour. Gas pressure is exterted in all directions equally. If it blew out one window, it should blow out all the windows, it it hurled one perimeter column at 60 mph, it should do that to all the perimeter columns."

The weak point was most likely the seam between the window and the wall rather than the window, but I'll grant that for our purposes they are effectively equivalent in terms of effect and appearance.

Manufacturing and contruction will lead to each of those seams, or glass panes if you insist, having minor irregularities. Therefore each joint will have slightly different levels of resistance. Under normal conditions, the stresses would never reach anywhere those levels so that difference was irrelevant. But it does mean on that day that one window was going to go before the others, and that the others would follow at irregular intervals. As the building deformed from the stress, vertical structural members would flex, causing the seams on a column of windows to become even weaker than others, creating the effect of vertical line of windows that are blown out moments before the other windows on that floor.

Since compressed air under even less compression than clearly existed in the towers on that morning has no trouble propelling 14 tons at over supersonic speeds, there is no reason at all to doubt that hundreds of times more pressure but with less focus couldn't blast a lighter piece of material a shorter distance at a slower speed.

Maybe this time you could try actually disproving something rather than attempting to wave it away. Good luck with that.

So Brian, did Santa bring you the answers to the widows questions like you asked him to? I'm guessing not, given that you were naughty this year. You lied about Dr. Sunder and Dr. Asanteh-Asl, you stalked Carol Brouillet, you spammed and lied about Willie Rodriguez, and you called people "girls" on this blog. Santa would never give a bad boy like you what you asked for.

Also, I noticed that you're still lying here: about molten steel and the NIST report and explosives and symmetry and the like. Santa is already making his list for next year, Brian. Just keep that in mind.

GMS, why would you expect the seismic record to show explosions? The 1993 bomb was in the basement, and it left no seismic record (says Popular Mechanics--so take it with a grain of salt).

So now you're down to the usual nutty debunker argument that a collapse without explosions can do what you claim explosives can not do. Where exactly do you get your explosives expertise?

There are these things called shaped charges that direct the force of an explosive. Do your homework.

I don't "believe" anything. I want an explanation of the isolated squibs, and all I get is nonsense about people using the wrong screws on windows. The squibs are another issue that NIST dodged by stopping their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation. So that makes 7 essential issues NIST lacked the cojones to explain.

There are explosives available, more high-tech than RDX, that are quieter. Though your local slaughterhouse may use a sledge hammer to kill steers, that's not saying that more sophisticated ways of killing mammals don't exist.

For you to pretend that a 5" piece of concrete defeats the proposition that the 200 acres of concrete floors were pulverized is absurd. If somebody stole your dog and then gave you back one of its teeth, then you'd admit that nobody stole your dog?

You have no pics of boulders of concrete. You have no pics of 220 acres of concrete floors that vanished.

GMS, your airplane evidence is just silly. Nobody used the wrong screws in the windows in the WTC. If the "puff of air" was so puny that it could blow out one defective window without blowing out the others too, then there's no way it could hurl a 12-ton structural element 600 feet.

It is not a fantasy that the noise of the collapse would mask the sounds of detonations. You're really clutching at straws.

I never said a shockwave will select windows. I don't know what selects windows. But I know simple air pressure can not. And NIST clearly lacks the cojones to try to explain it.

ButtGale, you are simply babbling and trying to sound like you're saying something. You might as well be claiming you're discussing "research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware" and commenting that "Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation."

There's evidence of molten concrete at the Ground Zero museum. As Chris Sarns at JREF.

MGF, I see--you can not support your ridiculous claims that the 5 PhDs say that the steel buckled from fires and that some steel melts at low temperatures.

Thanks for making that clear.

I've done original research. For instance I have proven that CIT's flyover hypothesis is impossible.

JR, I understand the concept just fine. What you don't understand is that it's irrelevant to the issue. There were no jet engine in the elevator shafts of the WTC, nor any blast furnaces in the basement.

You have defined no mechanism but your own faith for your claim that high-pressure air could travel down dozens of floors below the crush zone of the towers and then blast out isolated windows.

Brian, stop lying. You believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and you'll go to great lengths to dismiss the overwhelming evidence against that proposition while clinging desperately to the most ridiculous "facts" that help your cause. In the process, you make it clear that you have not the slightest clue about physics, chemistry, engineering, history, or politics. You're so hysterical that you'll routinely contradict yourself.

"JR, I understand the concept just fine. What you don't understand is that it's irrelevant to the issue. There were no jet engine in the elevator shafts of the WTC, nor any blast furnaces in the basement."

Nice strawman, good on you for giving us an example of just what the OP was about.

I didn't say there was a jet engine anywhere. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide that quote to disprove my claim I'm making right this moment that you are a liar.

"You have defined no mechanism but your own faith for your claim that high-pressure air could travel down dozens of floors below the crush zone of the towers and then blast out isolated windows. "

I'm sorry, I thought you were aware of that large multiton chunk of building slamming down upon the sealed lower half of the building that morning. The air within that building had to get out somehow, that it eventually blew out some local weak spot is not exactly a surprise to anyone with two brains cells.

I don't see any evidence to substantiate your hand-waving and 100% fact-free assertions.

Why is that, 'tard?

Look fool, you do the same thing every right or left wing conspiracy monger does--you put the burden of proof on your detractors when in fact it belongs on you and the other morons alleging a conspiracy. You're the one making the absurd allegations; thus, you prove their merit if indeed they have any.

You perpetrate these myths all the while demanding that sane, intelligent people prove them wrong if they can--which is not only illogical and dishonest, it's insane.

Is that simple enough for you, Putómatic?

Now, either substantiate your malarkey or go take a long walk on a short pier, conspiracy nut.

And remember, asshole, the 100% fact-free opinion of a sex predator, conspiracy monger, college dropout and toilet water connoisseur who wears womens underwear is not "evidence."

There's evidence of molten concrete at the Ground Zero museum. As Chris Sarns at JREF.

Molten concrete? How does one melt a mixture made up of many different chemicals with different properties?

MGF, I see--you can not support your ridiculous claims that the 5 PhDs say that the steel buckled from fires and that some steel melts at low temperatures.

Brian, you still haven't provided a shred of evidence for there being molten steel at the WTC.

I've done original research. For instance I have proven that CIT's flyover hypothesis is impossible.

Nobody cares.

JR, I understand the concept just fine.

No you don't. That's why you're dumb enough to think the squibs were caused by explosives.

Pretty much everything you say about 9/11 is based on either abject ignorance, insanity, or willful dishonesty. You desperately want 9/11 truth to be true, and you're too dumb/insane to realize that your reasons for believing it just make it that much less plausible.

JR, you are engaging in empty posturing. If air pressure blows out a weakened window and does not blow out the other windows as well, that only shows how weak is the air pressure. In the case of the airliner, cabin pressure was probably around 11 psi, and atmospheric pressure at 30,000 feet was probably around 4 psi. So we're looking at a window that was maybe 20 square feet that blew out under 20,000 pounds of force. That's why you need to use the special screws!

I'll leave it to you to determine the dimensions of the WTC windows, evaluate the force that would have been exerted by hurricane winds, come up with an hypothesis on why one window might be weaker than the others, and calculate the internal pressures that would blow out a weaker window while sparing the others. Then you can apply that pressure to the task of accelerating 14 ton of steel to 60 mph.

Have fun!

I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, and you can not find an occasion when I ever said I did. You make up your facts.

The lengths to which the government has gone to cover up the facts certainly support the notion that 9/11 was an inside job, but the government may have many motivations to cover up the facts.

You claimed that the fact that a jet engine can accelerate a jet aircraft is relevant to the question of whether air pressure can accelerate 14 tons of steel to 60 mph. It would only be relevant if there were jet engines in the elevator shafts.

Your belief that the lower portion of the building was "sealed" is amusing. If you would bother to study the blueprints (as I have) you would see that there are many penetrations of floors for HVAC systems, power and communications raceways, plumbing, elevators, stairways, etc. There were many places for compressed air to go--and if it were restricted, it would by the laws of physics exert equal force in all directions and blow out ALL the windows, not just isolated ones.

Ian, The claim was made that shock waves have no directionality. The existence of shaped charges shows this is not true.

"Nobody cares" is the best argument you can muster. I've noticed that that's the best argument the defenders of Condi Rice can muster, too. Are you a defender of Condi Rice?

I don't know how you melt concrete. Not my thing. Ask Chris Sarns at JREF.

I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, and you can not find an occasion when I ever said I did. You make up your facts.

Brian, all you do here is post your fanatical belief in an inside job over and over again.

The lengths to which the government has gone to cover up the facts certainly support the notion that 9/11 was an inside job, but the government may have many motivations to cover up the facts.

See what I mean? Note that the idea of a cover-up is self-evident. Of course it is. It has to be for an inside job to be true, which you desperately want to believe.

Your belief that the lower portion of the building was "sealed" is amusing. If you would bother to study the blueprints (as I have) you would see that there are many penetrations of floors for HVAC systems, power and communications raceways, plumbing, elevators, stairways, etc. There were many places for compressed air to go--and if it were restricted, it would by the laws of physics exert equal force in all directions and blow out ALL the windows, not just isolated ones.

It also helps if you're a total ignoramus. 9/11 truth is much more believable when you don't understand how things work.

Ian, The claim was made that shock waves have no directionality. The existence of shaped charges shows this is not true.

Ah, so you're doing the usual thing in which you thrown completely irrelevant information out there in order to keep your tottering tower of delusions about 9/11 from collapsing.

"Nobody cares" is the best argument you can muster. I've noticed that that's the best argument the defenders of Condi Rice can muster, too. Are you a defender of Condi Rice?

And the creepy obsession with "Condi" Rice comes up again. Brian is obviously a disgusting misogynist, hence the stalking of Carol Brouillet. He can't stand that a woman could be intelligent and successful while he lives on disability with his parents.

I don't know how you melt concrete. Not my thing. Ask Chris Sarns at JREF.

Putómatic brays, "...The evidence for explosives is the squibs and the multi-ton debris sections flung at velocities of up to 60mph and distances of up to 600 feet. The evidence for incendiaries is the molten steel seen in the rubble."

Is this another example of your "research," Mr. Scientific reputation?

First of all, there was no "molten steel in the rubble." That's another myth, which you've utterly failed to substantiate.

Each floor, moreover, contained 519,128 cubic feet of air. As each acre-wide floor slammed into the floor below, it pulverized the building's concrete and pushed a half million cubic feet of air per floor out through the windows.

The air inside the elevator shafts and stairwells had nowhere to go, and wouldn't have been pushed out of the towers easily. Instead, air was trapped in the shafts and stairwells as the collapse above built up pressure. The air trapped in the towers finally broke through at the path of least resistance. This accounts for the ejected air which can be seen several stories below the descending floors.

GMS, why would you expect the seismic record to show explosions? The 1993 bomb was in the basement, and it left no seismic record (says Popular Mechanics--so take it with a grain of salt).

Yet the planes & collapases did. And while 1993 was a truck bomb (~.5 tons), according to the loons for twoof (Harrit specifically) it was tons and tons of explosives.

So now you're down to the usual nutty debunker argument that a collapse without explosions can do what you claim explosives can not do. Where exactly do you get your explosives expertise?

Where do you? Yes Brian I am under the strange idea that explosives make loud bangs.

There are these things called shaped charges that direct the force of an explosive. Do your homework.

And where is your expertise again? I know what they are, but your claims based on 0 evidence that a shockwave is selective is baseless, as is usual

I don't "believe" anything. I want an explanation of the isolated squibs, and all I get is nonsense about people using the wrong screws on windows. The squibs are another issue that NIST dodged by stopping their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation. So that makes 7 essential issues NIST lacked the cojones to explain.

You got one but you're under the delusion a shockwave will be selective.

There are explosives available, more high-tech than RDX, that are quieter. Though your local slaughterhouse may use a sledge hammer to kill steers, that's not saying that more sophisticated ways of killing mammals don't exist.

Yawn...and the evidence that these quieter in such a way to avoid recording, while defeating a WTC column and pushing it through the air while not being heard (AKA-the shockwave moving through the air itself?) Yah know, the question you have been running like a coward from.

For you to pretend that a 5" piece of concrete defeats the proposition that the 200 acres of concrete floors were pulverized is absurd. If somebody stole your dog and then gave you back one of its teeth, then you'd admit that nobody stole your dog?

Except that's not all I provided. Good job lying.

You have no pics of boulders of concrete. You have no pics of 220 acres of concrete floors that vanished.

Actually I provided them with rescue workers. Why the lies Brian?

GMS, your airplane evidence is just silly. Nobody used the wrong screws in the windows in the WTC. If the "puff of air" was so puny that it could blow out one defective window without blowing out the others too, then there's no way it could hurl a 12-ton structural element 600 feet.

No but some windows will inherently be weaker than others. When the pressure increases and the weakest gives the air will travel in that direction. Blow up a balloon until it pops and check the results. The entire balloon doesn't explode, it has a rupture at the weakest point. Now place a firecracker in there, light it and tie it. I suggest walking away. And check your results again.

It is not a fantasy that the noise of the collapse would mask the sounds of detonations. You're really clutching at straws.

Yet again Brian provides 0 evidence to support his claim.

I never said a shockwave will select windows. I don't know what selects windows.

Yet you believe that the force an explosive generates (a shockwave) does.

But I know simple air pressure can not. And NIST clearly lacks the cojones to try to explain it.

And yet again you fail to provide any evidence to support your claim. I provided evidence for mine, that a gas will find the weakest point and exit through there, not blow everything else out. I provided evidence. You did not. You're delusional, get over it.

So basically what Brian believes is that even if a container's pressure increases to the point where the weakest point fails, the pressure will maintain unabated, and not travel to the point of lowest concentration. Wasn't some fool throwing around the phrase "laws of physics"?

Ian, the 115 omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission report and the 7 essential mysteries ignored by the NIST report show there's been a coverup.

You can speculate on the implications but that doesn't change the fact.

Ian, you know nothing about my employment status or where I live. You get your information from liars.

I have provided evidence of molten steel at the WTC--testimony of 5 PhDs, pictures of a 40-pound ingot. You're a liar.

I never said the squibs were caused by explosives. I don't know what caused them. Hollywood special effects, for all I know.Very clever of al Qaeda to plant them there, and create all this suspicion of an inside job, don't you think? I do know the squibs have not been properly investigated, and that's one reason I want new investigations.

When did Richard Gage throw me out of 9/11 Truth? I don't remember that happening?

ButtGale, I have many times shown the evidence for molten steel at the WTC, including testimony of 5 PhDs, pictures of a 40-pound ingot. You're a liar.

Your half-million cubic feet of air per floor was obviously ejected out the windows, UtterFail, and the notion that this would accumulate and then blow out a single window 40 stories below is ludicrous.

Occam's razor says when you see explosions, think explosives, idiot.

GMS, I don't ignore any evidence.Obviously the plane impact contained more energy than any single bomb needed to sever any single core column. Or are you assuming the perps would just use one big momma bomb and blow the whole core up at once?

GMS, I have no explosives expertise. That's why I want real-life experts to explain these things to me, and why I don't rely on the claims of anonymous internet posters. I get my information from experts such as Roland Angle, Tom Sullivan, Danny Jowenko, Kim Ireland, and Steve Luce. Where do you get yours?

You provided a 5" "boulder" of concrete and pictures of shattered basement floors. Show me the 220 acres of high-rise floors. Show the the 220 acres of steel floor pans. You can't. They were pulverized.

NIST did not explain the squibs. You provide zero evidence to support your belief that one window will be sufficient to vent the gas that blew it out. You don't explain why so many of the squibs were at centrally located windows. How did all the center windows come to be the weakest ones?

I didn't run away from Craig "Nike" Ranke. He ran away from me at least five times, maybe more. I wanted more time to promote the debate. He wanted to do it furtively. He thus imposed an unreasonable time limit, and then withdrew the invitation to debate. He ran, not me.

Putómatic brays, "...I have many times shown the evidence for molten steel at the WTC...[blah][blah][blah]."

No, you've done nothing of the sort. You quote mined five Ph.D's testimony and ignored the facts. All of them, without exception, believe the towers collapsed when the steel buckled as the result of fire.

You're a liar.

Putómatic brays, "...Your half-million cubic feet of air per floor was obviously ejected out the windows, UtterFail, and the notion that this would accumulate and then blow out a single window 40 stories below is ludicrous."

That's right, Putómatic, ignore what I said about the elevator shafts and stairwells.

UtterFail, you are only making MGF's lies your own. This is how you guys maintain your illusions in this little support group you've got going here--blowing farts up each others asses.

MGF can not, and you can not, substantiate the claim that all the 5 PhDs who testified to molten steel "without exception, believe the towers collapsed when the steel buckled as the result of fire."

You guys just sit around lying to each other. A fine lot of debunkers.

Please provide a mechanism by which pressurized air blowing down elevator shafts and stairwells will exit out of a single window instead of blowing out all the windows (and instead of continuing down the elevator shafts and the stairwells). And explain why center-located windows are so often preferred for this. Go ahead, hombre. Go where NIST fears to tread.

There were certainly explosions. Dozens of witnesses said so. You're denying reality.

See what I mean? You're babbling about shaped charges even though there's no evidence of shaped charges being used on 9/11.

Show the the 220 acres of steel floor pans. You can't. They were pulverized.

False.

NIST did not explain the squibs.

It wasn't their mission to explain "squibs". Nobody cares about them except ignorant liars like you, because you don't understand anything about physics.

I didn't run away from Craig "Nike" Ranke.

False. He challenged you to a debate, and you ran away squealing and crying, just as you ran away from Willie Rodriguez squealing and crying. And you're still squealing and crying to us about Ranke and Rodriguez, while we laugh at you for it.

MGF can not, and you can not, substantiate the claim that all the 5 PhDs who testified to molten steel "without exception, believe the towers collapsed when the steel buckled as the result of fire."

There was no molten steel, Brian. Repeating your lies doesn't make them any more truthful. If you weren't a failed janitor who wears women's underwear, you might understand this.

You guys just sit around lying to each other. A fine lot of debunkers.

Squeal squeal squeal!

There's nothing to debunk. We'd rather just make fun of you for being a deranged liar who sniffs glue and lives with his parents while babbling about magic thermite elves all over the internet all day.

Please provide a mechanism by which pressurized air blowing down elevator shafts and stairwells will exit out of a single window instead of blowing out all the windows (and instead of continuing down the elevator shafts and the stairwells). And explain why center-located windows are so often preferred for this. Go ahead, hombre. Go where NIST fears to tread.

I will do so once you explain to us where you came up with the name "punxsutawneybarney".

Also, NIST doesn't "fear" unemployed janitors who believe in modified attack baboons and spend all day calling people "girls" on the internet.

There were certainly explosions. Dozens of witnesses said so. You're denying reality.

Ian, the 115 omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission report and the 7 essential mysteries ignored by the NIST report are facts. They show there's been a coverup.

Brian, repeating your dumbspam isn't going to change anything. There was no cover-up, the widows will never have their questions answered, and you will never marry Carol Brouillet. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

You know nothing about my employment status or where I live.Your information comes from known liars.

Poor Brian. I've humiliated him by pointing out that he's a failed janitor who lives with his parents and wears women's underwear, and all he can do is squeal about it.

I have provided evidence of molten steel at the TC--testimony of 5 PhDs, pictures of a 40-pound ingot. You're a liar.

Squeal squeal squeal!!!

You didn't say when Richard Gage threw me out of AE911Truth. You only added more lies to your claim. When did Richard Gage throw me out of AE911Truth?

Poor Brian. He's just squealing hysterically because he's been pwn3d.

Dozens of witnesses testified to explosions. You are denying reality.

Squeal squeal squeal!!!!

Well Brian, you've been pwn3d again and you've wasted another day posting dumbspam all over the internet. Maybe tomorrow you'll get the widows questions answered. Keep your chin up.

Ian, I never claimed that shaped charges were used on 9/11. Some idiot here claimed shock waves could not have directionality. You're trying to change the parameters to disguise the lie.

Show the the 220 acres of steel floor pans. You can't.

NIST did not explain the squibs.Their mission was to explain why and how the towers collapsed, and explaining the squibs is certainly part of "how".

Ranke challenged me to a debate, and then he rescinded the invitation because I was kicking his scrawny ass in the pre-debate discussions. He knew his only out was to run away and claim I ran away, and that's what he did.

I didn't run away from Willie Rodriguez. After the SLC mods showed that they intended to behave unethically with their JREF buddy Rosriguez, I tried to find an alternative venue. Willie wouldn't help. John Wright wanted to moderate a debate and Willie wouldn't play ball.

You're just trying to spam over the part above that shows that GMS and JR, two of the less-unintelligent of the debunkers around here, don't know beans about the behavior of gases under pressure.

Ian, I never claimed that shaped charges were used on 9/11. Some idiot here claimed shock waves could not have directionality. You're trying to change the parameters to disguise the lie.

Brian, you're just hysterically trying to cover up the fact that you've been pwn3d by posting endless dumbspam. It won't work.

Show the the 220 acres of steel floor pans. You can't.

I already showed it. You just can't read.

NIST did not explain the squibs.Their mission was to explain why and how the towers collapsed, and explaining the squibs is certainly part of "how".

Brian, I just told you that NIST doesn't exist to explain the obvious to paranoid liars who sniff glue and wear women's underwear.

Ranke challenged me to a debate, and then he rescinded the invitation because I was kicking his scrawny ass in the pre-debate discussions. He knew his only out was to run away and claim I ran away, and that's what he did.

See what I mean? You're still squealing and crying about how Ranke pwn3d you.

I didn't run away from Willie Rodriguez. After the SLC mods showed that they intended to behave unethically with their JREF buddy Rosriguez, I tried to find an alternative venue. Willie wouldn't help. John Wright wanted to moderate a debate and Willie wouldn't play ball.

Squealing and crying about Rodriguez too!

You're just trying to spam over the part above that shows that GMS and JR, two of the less-unintelligent of the debunkers around here, don't know beans about the behavior of gases under pressure.

Brian, the behavior of gases under pressure is yet another one of those items of high school physics that you know nothing about. Have you ever wondered why you ended up a failed janitor instead of a successful academic? It might have been from all the glue you sniffed in high school when you should have been studying.

Ian, you have not showed 220 acres of floor pans. Nobody has shown even one floor pan. You're a liar. You think this is a joke.

NIST didn't dodge the obvious. They obfuscated the obvious while dodging all the mysteries.

Ian, the discussions I had with GMS and JR and GB above showed that I understand the behavior of gases under pressure and they do not.

Mockery is not proof. It's just a pastime. You're going to wake up old and ugly and realize you've wasted enormous energies and priceless time in nothing but mockery. They mocked Jesus, don't you know? And their friends probably thought them pretty clever, too.

Ian, you have not showed 220 acres of floor pans. Nobody has shown even one floor pan. You're a liar. You think this is a joke.

Yes, it is a joke. I enjoy your insane babbling and squealing. It's funny to me.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that I've showed the 220 acres of floor pans.

NIST didn't dodge the obvious. They obfuscated the obvious while dodging all the mysteries.

False.

Ian, the discussions I had with GMS and JR and GB above showed that I understand the behavior of gases under pressure and they do not.

Um, no. You're delusional. This is why you're a failed janitor who lives on disability with his parents.

Mockery is not proof. It's just a pastime. You're going to wake up old and ugly and realize you've wasted enormous energies and priceless time in nothing but mockery.

My, such squealing!

Brian, you already are old and ugly (and insane, and ignorant, and stupid) and yet you can't stop wasting enormous energies and priceless time in pursuit of delusions. Please go see a psychiatrist.

They mocked Jesus, don't you know? And their friends probably thought them pretty clever, too.

I'm an atheist. Jesus seems like a bit of a kook to me, based on the Gospels. Anyway, you're not Jesus. Nobody follows you, nobody has martyred you. You're just a failed janitor with no friends, no family, and nothing to do but post dumbspam all over the internet all day.

Ian, you have not showed 220 acres of floor pans. Nobody has shown even one floor pan. You're a liar. You think this is a joke.

NIST obfuscated the obvious in 10,000 pages while leaving out all the mysteries by cutting off their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation.

Thus they could avoid dealing with the inexplicable--how a fire-induced collapse could take place at near-freefall speed, symmetrically, totally, pulverizing 180,000 tons of concrete floors, producing squibs 40 stories below the crush zone, producing molten steel in the rubble pile, and what brought down the lower cores that had survived the initial collapse.

Ian, your continued fact-free claims about me are loony tunes. Where do you get your information?

Ian, for a belief to be a delusion, it must be false. Nobody has shown my belief to be false that the NIST reports are bad science, that they're dishonest, that they're incomplete, and that they're unbelievable.

I didn't say anybody martyred me. I was pointing out that mockery is meaningless.

That you're an atheist tells me a lot about you--for instance your intellectual arrogance to believe you've proven that something does not exist. It also explains your cynicism, and your belief that lying to obstruct the widows' quest for answers is worthwhile.

Ian, you have not showed 220 acres of floor pans. Nobody has shown even one floor pan. You're a liar. You think this is a joke.

It is a joke. Your squealing is hilarious! Also, I have showed 220 acres of floor pans.

NIST obfuscated the obvious in 10,000 pages while leaving out all the mysteries by cutting off their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation.

False.

Thus they could avoid dealing with the inexplicable--how a fire-induced collapse could take place at near-freefall speed, symmetrically, totally, pulverizing 180,000 tons of concrete floors, producing squibs 40 stories below the crush zone,producing molten steel in the rubble pile, and what brought down the lower cores that had survived the initial collapse.

NIST is not responsible for investigating the delusions of a failed janitor and liar like you.

Ian, for a belief to be a delusion, it must be false. Nobody has shown my belief to be false that the NIST reports are bad science, that they're dishonest, that they're incomplete, and that they're unbelievable.

See what I mean? All you have is your delusions about 9/11. We've explained how they're delusions many times. Nobody cares if you accept the explanations since you're a liar and failed janitor who was expelled from the truth movement.

That you're an atheist tells me a lot about you--for instance your intellectual arrogance to believe you've proven that something does not exist. It also explains your cynicism, and your belief that lying to obstruct the widows' quest for answers is worthwhile.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Actually, I'm an atheist because I accept nothing without evidence, be it claims of miracles and resurrection from the 1st century AD Israel, or claims of squibs or explosives or molten steel from perverted failed janitors in 21st century California.

Ian, you lie like an 8-year-old girl who thinks she's cute. You have not showed 220 acres of floor pans. Nobody has shown even one floor pan.

NIST's objectives included explaining why and how the towers came down. When they punt on "how" there's no reason to believe their claims about "why".

You are so ignorant that you don't know the difference between arrogant atheism and and honest agnosticism. I'm beginning to think you're 15 years old. Probably you go to some prep school for dumb-ass fuckups from wealthy families.

If you really accept nothing without evidence, then you should not accept the official story about 9/11.

Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders. James Glanz said he saw a stalagmite of melted steel three feet high. You can lie about that 'til you're dust, but it won't change the fact.

I think Brian should read and understand the 5th and 6th Amendments from the Bill of Rights:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Also listed in the mix is "Bombs". But after reading the text carefully we can spot something that Brian nor any other Truther has spotted:

Bombs -

When an explosive is found at, a scene, firefighters do not disturb the device. They evacuate people, withdraw to a safe area, notify the bomb squad, and stretch a hose line and prepare for an explosion, collapse and fire.

Brian,

How come the FDNY never called the bomb squad from inside both Towers?

Ian, you lie like an 8-year-old girl who thinks she's cute. You have not showed 220 acres of floor pans. Nobody has shown even one floor pan.

False.

NIST's objectives included explaining why and how the towers came down. When they punt on "how" there's no reason to believe their claims about "why".

We know how and why. You choose not to accept it because you're a delusional liar.

You are so ignorant that you don't know the difference between arrogant atheism and and honest agnosticism. I'm beginning to think you're 15 years old. Probably you go to some prep school for dumb-ass fuckups from wealthy families.

TAW, the Hindenberg was another one of WAQo's hobbies. We've already been over that. Why would you expect a small amount of paint on the fabric to melt the skeleton? The adiabatic flame temp of Hydrogen is over 4000 F, and that didn't melt the steel framework either.

It's not a contradiction to talk about incendiaries and then talk about explosives. It's also not a contradiction to use shampoo and to use soap.

Your belief that there is a Constitutional prohibition against investigation of public events is silly--just like your legal theories about repeating Dr. Astaneh's statement to PBS about melting of girders.

TAW, the Hindenberg was another one of WAQo's hobbies. We've already been over that. Why would you expect a small amount of paint on the fabric to melt the skeleton?

We wouldn't. That's the point. You're the one who makes the idiotic claim that thermite painted on the towers by secret elevator repairmen was responsible for the collapses.

It's not a contradiction to talk about incendiaries and then talk about explosives. It's also not a contradiction to use shampoo and to use soap.

Brian, you already demonstrated that you don't know how to use shampoo or soap. You also don't understand the word "contradiction".

Your belief that there is a Constitutional prohibition against investigation of public events is silly--just like your legal theories about repeating Dr. Astaneh's statement to PBS about melting of girders.

Dr. Asanteh-Asl never say melting of girders. Repeating these lies don't make them true.

Why would you expect a small amount of paint on the fabric to melt the skeleton?

Because, in your world, thermite of any amount can bring down 2 enormous Towers that weighed over 1 million tons each. But in reality it couldn't even melt the metal skeleton of an airship.

Looks like you're making an ass out of yourself once again. How ironic!

The adiabatic flame temp of Hydrogen is over 4000 F, and that didn't melt the steel framework either.

Niether can 1,341 F. So what's your point you idiot?

It's not a contradiction to talk about incendiaries and then talk about explosives. It's also not a contradiction to use shampoo and to use soap.

Brian, you fail to understand 1 logical thing.

Explosives would've been rendered useless because:

A: The planes impacts would've damaged them

B: The jet fueled fires would've burned away the explosives. C-4 can burn in a fire, WWII vets have confirmed this as well as the Mythbusters.

C: There are no medical records of anyone within 1 city block from the Towers that had ear damage from these "explosives".

D: Jules and Gedeon Naudet (French documentry film makers) were inside the lobby of one of the Towers and remained unscathed by these "explosives". Also Willie Rodriguez would've perished too if there had been explosives where he was at.

ToothlessAndAlwaysWacko, where did I say "thermite of any amount can bring down 2 enormous Towers"?

Like most of y'all on this board, you just make stuff up. The point about hydrogen is that if hydrogen didn't melt the Hindenburg's frame, then the failure of some accidental thermite to do it is meaningless.

What makes you think there would have been explosives at the impact floors? And why are you insisting on specs for WWII explosives? Thermite is not easy to ignite. It could survive a jet fuel fire which, after all, lasted less than ten minutes.

Why would you expect people to have ear damage? When I see the CD videos I don't see the spectators wearing ear protectors.

What makes you think the Naudet Brothers and Willie R would have been near explosives?

I'm not out to prosecute anybody. I want an honest investigation.

How do you know the FDNY never called the bomb squad from inside both Towers? If you knew anything about 9/11 you'd know that the radios didn't work.

I know exactly what Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said. It was recorded by NOVA and PBS. For you to quote-mine my wordprocessing error is dishonest.

Hey look, it's WAQo to bat-pat ToothlessAndAlwaysWacko!

What ever gave you the idea I was trying to prove that explosives were used?

The things you doofuses (doofi?) think are dispositive is really a hoot.

What makes you think there would have been explosives at the impact floors? And why are you insisting on specs for WWII explosives? Thermite is not easy to ignite. It could survive a jet fuel fire which, after all, lasted less than ten minutes.

Thermite is not an explosive. Also, the fires burned in the rubble pile until December of 2001. They did not go out in less than 10 minutes.

Why would you expect people to have ear damage?

Because that's what explosives do. If you knew anything about explosives and weren't a failed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons, you'd understand this.

What makes you think the Naudet Brothers and Willie R would have been near explosives?

They were in the towers.

I'm not out to prosecute anybody. I want an honest investigation.

We've had an honest investigation. Nobody cares if you don't like it.

How do you know the FDNY never called the bomb squad from inside both Towers?

Please provide the testimony from the FDNY that they called the bomb squad.

I know exactly what Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said. It was recorded by NOVA and PBS. For you to quote-mine my wordprocessing error is dishonest.

False.

What ever gave you the idea I was trying to prove that explosives were used?

You constantly babble about explosives in the towers.

The things you doofuses (doofi?) think are dispositive is really a hoot.

Poor Brian. Another day went by without the widows questions being answered, and all he can do is squeal about it.

ToothlessAndAlwaysWacko, where did I say "thermite of any amount can bring down 2 enormous Towers"?

The voices in your empty skull told you.

Like most of y'all on this board, you just make stuff up. The point about hydrogen is that if hydrogen didn't melt the Hindenburg's frame, then the failure of some accidental thermite to do it is meaningless.

Accidental thermite?! Are you daft or just plain fucking retarded Brian? They used painted on thermite to protect the skin of airships and biplanes from the elements. It was a technilogical feat in those days. Accidental thermite my achin ass.

What makes you think there would have been explosives at the impact floors? And why are you insisting on specs for WWII explosives? Thermite is not easy to ignite. It could survive a jet fuel fire which, after all, lasted less than ten minutes.

Because the voices in your empty head told you there were. Unlike you, I researched about C-4. Thermite is also a welding tool. Give me 1 good prime example where a welding tool was ever used in demolition.

Why would you expect people to have ear damage? When I see the CD videos I don't see the spectators wearing ear protectors.

A demolition can be heard and felt for 1/2 miles. If they're not wearing ear protection then why bother to come up with the demolition bullshit theories at all?

What makes you think the Naudet Brothers and Willie R would have been near explosives?

If they were, they wouldn't be living today now would they dumbass?

I'm not out to prosecute anybody. I want an honest investigation.

You had one, but you lost you God damn mind over stupid silly theories.

How do you know the FDNY never called the bomb squad from inside both Towers? If you knew anything about 9/11 you'd know that the radios didn't work.

If the radios didn't work, then niether could explosives that were remotely detonated.

I know exactly what Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said. It was recorded by NOVA and PBS. For you to quote-mine my wordprocessing error is dishonest.

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

SPENCER MICHELS: But they got soft, though, didn't they?

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Yes. When steel gets to 1,000 degrees, it loses its strength.

According to documents and records at known steel mills around the country, 2,600 - 2,800* F is hot enough to melt steel.

On September 16th, NASA flew an airplane over the World Trade Center site, recorded infrared radiation coming from the ground, and created a thermal map. The U.S. Geological Survey analyzed this data, and determined the actual temperature of the rubble. This map shows that five days after the collapse of Building 7, the surface temperature of a section of its rubble was 1,341º F.

1,341* F isn't hot enough to melt steel. Brian is totally lying out his ass and there's the proof.

Why do you think being "in the towers" would put the Naudet Brothers and Willie R in the proximity of explosives? Willie never got above the 39th floor. I'm not sure the Naudets even left the lobby.

Ian, we have not had an honest investigation. Philip Zelikow's tenure as E.D. of the 9/11 Commission was corrupt. Read Shenon's book. NORAD lied. Read Hamilton and Kean's book. NIST failed to fulfil the objectives of its investigation, one of which was to explain "why and how" the towers collapsed. They dodged the 7 big mysteries of the event.

I never claimed that FDNY called the bomb squad. MGF claimed that they didn't. MGF has a habit of making stuff up. I want to know if this is one of those things.

I know exactly what Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said. It was recorded by NOVA and PBS. Your continued lies about this are stupid, and devastating to the credibility of the mods and almost all the posters on this board.

Your belief that discussion of explosives means I'm trying to prove that they were used is typical irrational Iananity.

Wow, ToothlessnAlwaysWacko's hearing voices inside MY head. I never heard of that hefore.

The "thermite" on the Hindenburg was paint that happened to contain iron oxide and aluminum. If you believe that it was formulated as thermite deliberately, you need to provide some evidence of that.

WAQo, cutting torches are used in demolitions all the time. You're not very bright.

What makes you think there would have been explosives near the Naudet Brothers and Willie R?

For you to claim that the official investigations were honest is just ignorant.

So now you think the detonators would have been set off with Rudy's grifty FDNY radios? Why would the perps want to do something stupid like that?

I know exactly what Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said. It was recorded by NOVA and PBS. No peer-reviewed journal necessary. It's a simple fact. Easily checked. Learn to google.

Why do you think being "in the towers" would put the Naudet Brothers and Willie R in the proximity of explosives? Willie never got above the 39th floor. I'm not sure the Naudets even left the lobby.

Because, you said there were explosives and those 3 people surived somehow. He never said anything about Willie being on the 39th floor asshole. Of course they didn't you prick.

I never claimed that FDNY called the bomb squad.

Then stop talking about bombs you fucking asshole.

I know exactly what Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said. It was recorded by NOVA and PBS.

But then again NOVA and PBS aren't in any peer-reviewed journal now are they you fudgepacking midget?

Your belief that discussion of explosives means I'm trying to prove that they were used is typical irrational Iananity.

Sure, and things don't fit together. You have a bomb scare at a high school down the street from the WTCs, then there's no indication of the FDNY calling for bomb squads. Brian, you seriously fucked up this one.

If you believe that it was formulated as thermite deliberately, you need to provide some evidence of that.

Ask the Mythbusters you asshole.

WAQo, cutting torches are used in demolitions all the time. You're not very bright.

Sure and WELDING THERMITE is used in demolition because some asshole, like yourself, told you.

For you to claim that the official investigations were honest is just ignorant.

Oh shut up you asshole.

he's talking about steel at the freeway, not the WTC.

LMAO TRAW got you to admit that he wasn't talking about the Towers. Jokes on you motherfucker.

I never said 1,000 degrees F is enough to "melt" steel? It takes 2700 F to do that.

You want a cookie?

So obviously the temps underneath were far higher.

Got any NASA data to confirm that asshole?

Just like WAQo, you really like those "Deliverance" lines. Say, do you play banjo by any chance? Maybe you and ButtGale could have a duel.

Can you support your claim that they keep demolition spectators at least 1/2 mile away? Or this typical Wacko-logic: I know explosives cause ear damage, so therefore I think they must keep the spectators away, and that proves that explosives cause ear damage.

I didn't say there were explosives. And I certainly didn't say they would have been in the lobby and below the 39th floor if there were. Willie said he was on the 39th floor. You don't know what you're talking about.

Your belief that news media need to be peer-reviewed to be able to quote experts is based on what, exactly? Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl were recorded by NOVA and PBS. There's no doubt about what they said.

It's not for me to ask the Mythbusters. You're the one who says the Hindenburg;as paint was formulated as thermite deliberately. You ask them.

Thermite was used to bring down a 600-foot tower in Chicago in 1935.

Dr. Astaneh said he saw "melting of girders at World Trade Center."He was contrasting the WTC, where steel did melt, with the freeway fire, where it didn't.

NASA was just measuring the surface temps. Since the heat at the surface came from below, it follows by the 2d law of thermodynamics that the heat source below was hotter than the surface was.

I know the difference between evidence and bullshit. And all you have are spin, lies and bullshit.

You've never proven that ANYTHING I've written is wrong or in error. All you have is hand waving and nay-saying.

You deliberately substitute propaganda techniques for evidence. And the reason for doing so is simple: You have no evidence.

You do the same thing every right or left wing conspiracy monger does--you put the burden of proof on your detractors when in fact it belongs on you and the other morons alleging a conspiracy. You're the one making the absurd allegations; thus, you prove their merit if indeed they have any.

Can you support your claim that they keep demolition spectators at least 1/2 mile away?

Can you counter his claim with evidence? I didn't this so jackass.

I didn't say there were explosives. And I certainly didn't say they would have been in the lobby and below the 39th floor if there were. Willie said he was on the 39th floor. You don't know what you're talking about.

Actually you did a number of times, even repeating it on a daily basis. Then why did you bring up the 39th floor to begin with retard? Willie wasn't on the 39th floor, he said he was in the Basement on Level 2. You need to stop lying out your ass.

Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl were recorded by NOVA and PBS. There's no doubt about what they said.

Where in the peer-reviewed journal does it cover NOVA and PBS? Come on asshole, I haven't got all day.

You're the one who says the Hindenburg;as paint was formulated as thermite deliberately. You ask them.

If you look at the physcial records, thermite was found on the skin of the Hindenburg. So it wasn't there "dilberately".

Thermite was used to bring down a 600-foot tower in Chicago in 1935.

Where's the documentation at for this claim? Gimme a source please.

He was contrasting the WTC, where steel did melt, with the freeway fire, where it didn't.

So you said that he said that there wasn't melting of steel in hte freeway fire but yet he also said:

So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders.

Since he said that, then there couldn't have been melting of girders in the WTC because there were no girders holding the outter columns. So what you think he said he actually didn't.

it follows by the 2d law of thermodynamics that the heat source below was hotter than the surface was.

Source please, and not this bullshit theory.

Either you have a source or you don't. If you don't then fuck off you dumb white haired rabbit. Go back into your hole you dug.

Obviously the plane impact contained more energy than any single bomb needed to sever any single core column. Or are you assuming the perps would just use one big momma bomb and blow the whole core up at once?

Never said that strawman. That's why truthers are so stupid none of these explosions were recorded on any medium at collapse.

GMS, I have no explosives expertise.

Good then stop making shit up about what can and can't happen.

That's why I want real-life experts to explain these things to me, and why I don't rely on the claims of anonymous internet posters. I get my information from experts such as Roland Angle, Tom Sullivan, Danny Jowenko, Kim Ireland, and Steve Luce. Where do you get yours?

Danny Jowenko: Doesn't think the towers were a CD, what we are talking about. Cute little attempt at a bait and switch Brian.

Kim Ireland:You mean Robert Kim Ireland? Just copyinh and pasting names from AE911Truth are we?

^^Retired chemical engineer. Who cares?

Steve Luce: A combat engineer. Anotehr non expert in CD's.

Now I see...you're just parroting the BS appeal to authority AE911truth video. Makes sense.

Well Brian most people understand how a "wave" operates. they tend to expand over a distance. I am still waiting for you to explain this effect that a blast wave is selective or how its contained to do so in an open floor space like the WTC. I have showed you examples of air doing it which you dutifully hand wave away. Do you have an example of an explosive?

You provided a 5" "boulder" of concrete and pictures of shattered basement floors.

You claim thats what it was with guess what? 0 evidence...that's right. Meanwhile it had steel columns protruding from it.

Show me the 220 acres of high-rise floors. Show the the 220 acres of steel floor pans. You can't. They were pulverized.

Show me the CD devices. You claimed the concrete was pulverized. I showed you examples it wasn't. Too bad so sad. Keep dancing.

NIST did not explain the squibs. You provide zero evidence to support your belief that one window will be sufficient to vent the gas that blew it out.

Except I did...you just hand waved it away.

You don't explain why so many of the squibs were at centrally located windows. How did all the center windows come to be the weakest ones?

In 2 sentences it goes from many to all. An other evidence free claim from Brian.

Why does that happen in CD's? Oops, no it doesn't just another stupid claim.

ButtGale, you just make stuff up--and if you knew the the difference between evidence and bullshit you wouldn't spend dozens of hours here a month spewing bullshit.

I have many times debunked your reckless and baseless claims. For instance your claim that RJ Lee found 6% of the dust by weight was microspheres. It';s now gotten so that you're afraid to make any specific claims, because you don't know what you're talking about and you know you'll make a fool of yourself.

I have plenty of evidence. I have the statements of 5 PhDs about molten steel, for starters.I have the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, Newton's 3rd Law, and NIST's refusal to explain the anomalous behavior of the towers, despite this being within their stated objectives.

WAQo, when did I say thermite was an explosive? Do you think burning office furniture melted the steel?

So you can't support your claim that they keep demolition spectators at least 1/2 mile away?Typical.

WAQo, you are revealing your one-bit mind. Willie was in the basement AND on the 39th floor. You really need to check your facts before accusing someone of lying. Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl were recorded by NOVA and PBS. There's no doubt about what they said. Your peer-reviewed standard is ridiculous. Since when did you start getting your news from peer-reviewed journals?

I never said the Hindenburg;as paint was formulated as thermite deliberately. I suggested that maybe it was accidental thermite. You disputed that.

Thermite was used to bring down a 600-foot tower in Chicago in 1935.Says Popular Mechanics. Learn to google and you might learn something.

Dr. Sunder was contrasting the WTC, where steel did melt, with the freeway fire, where it didn't.He said there was no melting of girders on the freeway, but there was melting at the WTC. Maybe you should type less until you learn to read.

The 2d law of thermodynamics is not a "bullshit theory". Learn to google.

Actually there is evidence that at some floors, particularly mechanical floors, there were girders connecting the cores to the perimeter columns.

GMS, I'm not making anything up.

Danny Jowenko thought WTC7 was a CD. How do you know he thought the towers weren't?

Robert Kim Ireland had training in explosives in the army.

Steve Luce was trained in blowing up bridges.

Roland Angle blew a lot of shit up in the Green Berets.

I'm not claiming any expertise in explosives or explosive shock waves, and I'm not going to listen to anybody on the subject who won't give me his name.

Obviously shaped charges are selective in what way their force goes.

You provided a 5" "boulder" of concrete. You can tell the sizew by scaling from the 1/2" rebar sticking up out of the wall.

Show me the 220 acres of high-rise floors. Show the the 220 acres of steel floor pans. You can't. They were pulverized.

First you claim that shock waves are not directional, and then you claim that all the force can be vented from one window. You can't have it both ways.

ToothlessnAlwaysWacko, your belief that the fact that Willie Rodriguez is still alive proves no CD took place is absurd.

ButtGale, what is this childish hangup on "proof"? You have a mind like a 7-year-old.

There's the story, probably apocryphal, of the Indian who got his first iron hatchet. He tried it out on grass, he tried it out on deer, he tried it out on trees, he tried it out on dirt. He was might pleased with it. Then he tried it out on stone and within a few minutes it became a mere hammer. He threw it away in disgust.

You're like that fictional Indian, ButtGale. For you, if it's not proof, it's worthless. Science doesn't prove things. It only provides information that is consistent with a certain proposition, or that disproves that proposition.

ToothlessnAlwaysWacko, what is your source for your salacious fantasy about me wanting to kill people?

That makes no sense. If I killed them I'd have to eat them, and that fatty meat wouldn't be healthy.

Carol Brouillet would be worth eating, but it would be selfish of me to deprive her family of the pleasure of her company when I can just visit my local backyard carniciero and order fresh duck, goose, turkey, rabbit, chinchilla, deer, lamb, goat, snake, or horse for cheap.